CANNING v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Filing 44

MEMORANDUM OPINION to the Order on Plaintiff's Motions for Discovery and a Stay of the Case and Defendant's Motion for a Protective Order. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 4/2/13. (CL, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
GEORGE CANNING,
Plaintiff,

v.

Civil Action No. 11-1295 (GK)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

On January 14, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Second Motion for Discovery and for a Stay ofthe Case
While Discovery is Conducted, accompanied by a Second Declaration of George Canning [Dkt. No.
31]. Plaintiff has also filed a Renewed Motion for Discovery Regarding His Mailing of the July and
December 2009 FOIA Requests, and for a Stay of the Case While Discovery is Conducted [Dkt. No.
35]. Finally, he has also filed a document titled "Plaintiffs Second Interrogatories and Request for
Production of Documents and Recordings." The Government has filed a Motion for Protective
Order and Memorandum in Support Thereof [Dkt. Nos. 38 and 38-1].
There is no question that the Government is correct that discovery in general is unavailable
in Freedom oflnformation Act ("FOIA") actions, 5 U.S.C. § 522, et seq. Wheeler v. CIA, 271 F.
Supp. 2d 132, 129 (D.D.C. 2003). Moreover, if the Court deems the declarations of an agency
deficient, then it may request that the agency supplement those disclosures rather than order
discovery. Hall v. CIA, 881 F. Supp. 2d 38, 73 (D.D.C. 2012). In short, discovery in FOIA cases
is rarely allowed.
Mr. Canning, a non-lawyer (but a knowledgeable FOIA plaintiff), makes frequent use of his
rights as a citizen under the Freedom oflnformation Act ("FOIA"). It is clear from his many filings,

at least before this Court, that he is a highly intelligent gentleman, who, over the years, has learned
a vast amount about the procedures and inner workings of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as
well as other national security agencies of the United States Government. Having said all that, the
Court must note some major deficiencies in Mr. Canning's attempt to obtain· very extensive
discovery in this case.
First, many of his requests for production of documents and his interrogatories seek
information which can only be evaluated after the Government's Motion for Summary Judgment is
fully briefed. He claims that much of the information he seeks goes to the issue of whether material
facts are in dispute and that he needs that information in order to directly challenge the accuracy of
the Government's factual representations. His allegations that the Government's facts are inaccurate
must be contested by filing an Opposition to the Government's pending Motion for Summary
Judgment. Second, it is abundantly clear that at least some of the information he seeks is irrelevant
or protected by various exemptions contained in the Act itself.
Given all of the above, and the extremely detailed nature of the discovery that Mr. Canning
seeks, the Court concludes that his two Motions must be denied. The most efficient way to proceed
in this case, which is now more than two years old, is for Plaintiff to submit his Opposition to the
Government's Motion for Suminary Judgment and for the Government to file its Reply, if any.
Some of the discovery sought by Mr. Canning may well be mooted by rulings on the Motion for
Summary Judgment.

9t~

WHEREFORE, it is this

~day

of April, 2013, hereby

ORDERED, that the Government's Motion for a Protective Order is granted; and it is
further
-2-

ORDERED, that the Plaintiffs Second Motion for Discovery and Renewed Motion for
Discovery shall be denied; and it is further
ORDERED, that Plaintiff shall file his Opposition to the pending Motion for Summary
Judgment no later than May 1, 2013; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Government shall file its Reply, if any, no later than June 1, 2013.

Copies via ECF to all counsel of record
and to
George Canning
60 Sycolin Road
Leesburg, VA 20175

-3-